Rich wrote:Unless I'm mistaken, Ron Paul doesn't even support patent abolition, hell he doesn't even support software patent abolition. You see software patent abolition is a moderate achievable policy, that could get support from the left. But of course that would challenge powerful corporate interests which Libertarians have no interest in doing. Yes I know "in principle", in the abstract in the Libertarian never never land, corporate and rich peoples interests would be compromised, but in the real world, in the here and now they never are.
I think a position like this is one example where I think the mainstream, including many on the left, have learned from libertarianism. It seems a coalition of people on the left and libertarian right are questioning how far this patent thing has gone from the founders wanting it to encourage innovation and limiting it to 14 years only (which I think is a general principle we should fall back on). However as far as the "libertarian" influence on the GOP it seems to stop at issues like this.
Case in point Keystone Pipeline which was built with eminent domain and threatens property rights of numerous farmers in case oil spills, yet Republicans are lining up behind it. Granted Obama's refusal to commit to it is based on purely political motives of appeasing environmental ideologues while not appearing too anti-business, but still Republicans are the hypocrites on this one. So Republicans are all for "free markets" when it comes to cutting things that help the poor but not if it helps the rich.
Something like Obamacare may of course get some extra prominence just like any current affairs issue - particularly if there is a higher likelihood that a concerted campaign may prevent the new legislation.
You see the truth is that humanity is fundamental immoral. I mean by that that the vast majority of humanity don't live and most certainly don't vote by the principles they claim to support. In their politics most people are deeply hypocritical. Politicians and political activists of all stripes compound this situation by constantly telling the majority of the people that they are moral and that all our problems are caused by some immoral other, whether it be capitalists, government, immigrants, welfare bums, extremists, haters etc etc. So there is large a number people that don't like Obamacare who have no problem with American support for terrorists like the Bahrain regime, Guantanamo, drone strikes etc, or if they do have a problem its only because the c**nts might have to pay some taxes for it. Libertarians pander to these peoples prejudices.[/quote]
Indeed. Most voters have a lot of cognitive dissonance going in. In fact very few people are truly principled all the time. Look at the people who condemn the welfare state while they have their hand out for Social Security and Medicare. The primary election in Mississippi was interesting in that it played the perfect example. Mississippi prides itself on being "conservative" so I think based on the rhetoric McDaniel thought he was a shoe-in, that is until people thought the government projects Cochran brought to Mississippi were under threat. You see ideology is well and good but as soon as material benefits are threatened it goes out the window. The same thing is true of McConnell in Kentucky. Even the presence of Rand Paul did not help because Rand Paul (if you notice) is much more careful than his father about going after the popular aspects of government.
In the end I always said that the most ideologically committed members of the Tea Party and libertarians are wasting their time. No matter how much the general public responds to libertarian rhetoric, no matter how "in theory" sympathetic they may be to it they will never win. Time and time they are confused because people vote based on abstract rhetoric yet when push comes to shove the public rejects it in actuality. The reason why is because Americans simply are not ideological. We are a nation that is rhetorically conservative yet operationally liberal. We love to talk about small government but we love government programs even more.
I've often said that the difference between Republicans who want the GOP to be a competitive political party and those who are in indeological fantasy land is that realistic Republicans accept that some things are on the table but others are not. Social Security and Medicare can be reformed, but the fact that government has a role in this is not going away.
Libertarianism suffers from two fundamental and absolute irresolvable issues. First that there is no agreement on what constitutes aggression and in particular there is no absolutely no agreement on what constitutes legitimate property. But secondly that even when there is common agreement people mostly throw out non aggression as soon as it becomes slight inconvenient, as soon as there is significant net benefit from committing aggression. Yes at a local, personal level, there are taboos, most people won't commit murder in ordinary life just because they can gain from it and almost certainly get away with it. Although if there's no chance of getting caught how would we eve know. But at a wider political level there is no principle. So if in 1939 you asked people whether fire bombing and nuking cites was an act of aggression, I'm sure the overwhelming majority would have said yes, but when it came to it the overwhelming majority of people in Britain and America said fuck it look its only a couple of million people we're wasting lets so it any way. Once the war is over we can always condemn it and blame it on our evil leaders who led us astray, or better still just carry on like it never happened.
Ideology really is a luxury of those who are living in relative material prosperity and peace. It is not a luxury people have in times of poverty and crisis.
There was no movement against city bombing in Britain or America. This is a problem because most Libertarians seem to be arguing that the mass of the people are essentially unconscious Libertarians who have been hood winked by minority of evil Statists into supporting government. that the majority of the population are natural non aggressors and it is only evil government that allows a few evil types to dominate. They are not.
Exactly. I know a few Tea Party/libertarian types and for the most part they generally believe everybody really agrees with them deep down. For instance I've heard it said that libertarians can win by making alliances with the left on social issues and the right on economics. Yet I've often said as nice as those theoretical alliances may sound wait until the general election when it is all decided. Lets say Rand Paul wins the GOP primary by getting a few civil libertarian leftists to register Republican or cross party lines and vote for him over other candidates. Great, but in the end very few people ultimately vote on such matters in the end. Most average voters are much more focused on bread and butter issues.
All I can say is if Rand Paul in this theoretical matchup with say, Hillary, might win but only if he stays away from the libertarian stuff about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. So as unpopular as Hillary might be if he runs full bore she will be able to say, "Rand Paul wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and leave old and sick people to fend for themselves. Rand Paul wants to end federal funding for education which will mean your local property taxes will go sky high (which is a tactic Cochran used against McDaniel)." In the end you will see Rand Paul defeated handily much like Goldwater, who ran on an unapologetically libertarian/conservative platform. Reagan only won 16 years later because he backtracked and vowed to protect Social Security, downplayed his previous opposition to Medicare and basically scuttled all the libertarian stuff in favor of popular rhetoric appealing to general principles about making America feel good again etc.
I would really like to see an ideological test case to put down this myth of a conservative electorate once and for all (as if 2012 didn't prove that). I would like to see Rand Paul running on a full bore libertarian platform versus Elizabeth Warren running on her platform without apology. I think Warren would lose to a Chris Christie because he would keep the conservative rhetoric while promising to protect Social Security etc. But when its all out in the open I daresay America will vote for the true left over the true right, because in the end rich people pay most of the taxes anyway, but whether or not you get your Social Security check is much more important than making sure the food stamp surfer doesn't get his (and if you don't know who that is, look it up).